Re: [EPEL-devel] Dealing with cyclic dependencies
On 8 September 2015 at 11:02, Bryan Chan <bryan.chan(a)ca.ibm.com> wrote:
As I mentioned at last Friday's meeting, we have tried building
EPEL 7
packages on s390x, using a simple script that runs mock on all the
SRPMs, and populating a local yum repo with the generated binary RPMs.
SRPMs that fail to build due to missing dependencies will often succeed
on the second pass, when they find the necessary dependencies in the
local yum repo. However, RPMs that have cyclic dependencies cannot be
built this way, when none of the RPMs in the cycle currently exists for
a new architecture.
I suppose one could break the cycle by installing dependencies from
source, and then building one of the RPMs with rpmbuild -bb --nodeps,
outside of mock. Once the cycle is broken, the remaining packages
should be possible to build with mock.
I just wonder if any one knows of a better way to deal with this.
Normally you use 1-2 side repos where you put your packages.
Repo 1: All the package for s390 f17 (for example)
Repo 2: All the packages as they are built by your rebuild script.
As the packages in repo 1 are usually lesser EVR than the f18/f19 you
are wanting to rebuild you can usually meet the minimum for a circular
dependency. If you want to really get fancy you can remove packages
from Repo1 as they are rebuilt in Repo2 and then have a Repo3 which is
the rebuild of the rebuilds.
[Somewhere along the way you run out of turtles on the way down...]
Bryan
_______________________________________________
epel-devel mailing list
epel-devel(a)lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/epel-devel
--
Stephen J Smoogen.